The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible
for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian
Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia
since 1991 (“Appeals Chamber
” and “International Tribunal”, respectively) is seised
of an appeal by Savo Todovic (“Appellant”) against
the “Decision on Referral of Case under Rule 11bis
with Confidential Annexes I and II”, rendered by the
Referral Bench on 8 July 2005
(“Impugned Decision”).1

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Appellant was originally jointly charged
with Mitar Rasevic and Milorad Krnojelac in an indictment
that was confirmed on 17 June 1997.2
On 12 May 2004, pursuant to a decision of a Trial Chamber,3
the Prosecution filed an amended indictment against
the accused Mitar Rasevic only
4 which was confirmed
by the Trial Chamber.5

In November 2004, the Prosecution filed motions
for the referral of the cases against the Appellant
and Mitar Rasevic to the authorities of Bosnia and
Herzegovina pursuant to Rule 11bis of the
Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”) while
the Appellant was still at large6 and
the President of the International Tribunal appointed
a Referral Bench for the purpose of determining whether
the cases should be referred to the authorities of
Bosnia and Herzegovina.7

On 15 January 2005, the Appellant surrendered
to the International Tribunal. On 14 April 2005,
the Referral Bench issued a decision ordering the
parties, and inviting the Government of Bosnia
and Herzegovina to submit responses to specific
questions.8 All
the responses were filed on 28 April 2005.9 On 9 May 2005, the Government of Serbia and Montenegro filed a submission
requesting referral of the case to its authorities
and that it be invited to participate in the hearing
scheduled for 12 May 2005.10 On 12
May 2005, a hearing pursuant to Rule 11bis of
the Rules was held. 11
In addition to the parties, representatives of the
Governments of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of Serbia
and Montenegro were present. Further submissions were
filed following the Rule 11bis hearing.12

Meanwhile, on 23 March 2005, the Pre-Trial
Judge of the Trial Chamber seized of the case, ordered
the Prosecution to “file a motion for leave to amend
the indictment [against the Appellant] by 29 April
2005, [and to] therein reconcile the indictment
against [Savo] Todovic and the amended indictment
against [Mitar] Rasevic.”13
The Trial Chamber subsequently considered that the
charges against the Appellant and Mitar Rasevic should
be addressed in a joint indictment, and ordered the
Prosecution to file a new motion for leave to amend
and to join the Proposed Amended Indictment with the
amended indictment against Mitar Rasevic.14
The new motion was filed on 25 May 2005, and contained
the proposed Joint Amended Indictment attached as
Annex A.15

On 27 June 2005, the Appellant filed a motion
before the Trial Chamber pursuant to Rule 72(A)(ii)
of the Rules alleging defects in the form of the
proposed Joint Amended Indictment and raising several
objections, inter alia, on grounds
of vagueness and lack of specificity, and requesting
the Trial Chamber to order the Prosecution to amend
the proposed Joint Amended Indictment in accordance
with the objections raised within the motion.16
No decision on the motion of the Appellant has been
so far taken by the Trial Chamber.17

Pending a decision of the Trial Chamber on
the Appellant’s challenge to the
form of the proposed Joint Amended Indictment, the
Referral Bench, following the briefing and the Rule 11bis Hearing,
relied on the gravity of the crimes with which the
Appellant is charged and the level of his responsibility
in the proposed Joint Amended Indictment, and concluded
that it was satisfied “on the information
presently available” that the Appellant should receive
a fair trial and that the death penalty would not
be imposed or carried out.18
The Referral Bench held that the referral was appropriate
and concluded that referral of the case to the authorities
of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be ordered.19

On 25 July 2005, the Prosecution filed a notice
of appeal against the Impugned Decision setting
forth one ground of appeal related to the obligation
of monitoring the trial and reporting to the Referral
Bench of its progress.20
As the same ground had been raised by the Prosecution
in its appeal against the decisions on referral in
the Stankovic, Mejakic and Jankovic cases, the Prosecution requested that these cases be assigned “to
a single judicial bench of the Appeals Chamber, and
that this issue be heard and resolved in a consolidated
manner.”21 The
Prosecution filed its Appellant’s Brief on 5 August
2005.22
The Appellant filed his Response Brief on 15 August 2005,
indicating that he did not oppose the Prosecution’s
Appellant’s Brief as the sixth ground of appeal raised
by the Defence was “in part identical to the Prosecution’s
single ground of appeal.”23

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was filed on
25 July 2005, setting forth six grounds of appeal
against the Impugned Decision and requesting, inter
alia,
that the case be tried before the International Tribunal.24
Alternatively, if the Appeals Chamber determined that
the case should be referred to the authorities of
a State, the Appellant seeks that the case be referred
to a State that complies with the conditions of Rule 11bis of
the Rules, and preferably the State of Serbia and
Montenegro.25

On 9 August 2005, the Defence filed the Appellant’s
Brief26
to which the Prosecution responded on 19 August 2005,27
and the Defence filed its reply on 26 August 2005.28
Following the rendering of the Appeals Chamber’s decision
in the Stankovic
case,29 the Prosecution
withdrew its appeals in the Rasevic and Todovic, Mejakic and Jankovic cases.30

DISCUSSION

Rule 11bis of the Rules, as amended to
reflect Security Council resolution 1534 (2004)31, provides in its relevant
parts:

(A) After an indictment has
been confirmed and prior to the commencement
of trial, irrespective of whether or not the
accused is in the custody of the Tribunal,
the President may appoint a bench of three
Permanent Judges selected from the Trial Chambers
(hereinafter referred to as the “Referral Bench”),
which solely and exclusively shall determine
whether the case should be referred to the
authorities of a State :

(i) in whose territory the crime was committed; or

(ii) in which the accused was arrested; or

(iii) having jurisdiction and being willing and adequately
prepared to accept such a case,

so that those authorities should forthwith refer the
case to the appropriate court for trial within that
State.

(B) The Referral Bench may order such referral proprio
motu or at the request
of the Prosecutor, after having given to the Prosecutor
and, where applicable, the accused, the opportunity
to be heard and after being satisfied that the accused
will receive a fair trial and that the death penalty
will not be imposed or carried out.

(C) In determining whether to refer the case in accordance
with paragraph (A), the Referral Bench shall, in
accordance with Security Council resolution 1534
(2004), consider the gravity of the crimes charged
and the level of responsibility of the accused.

At the outset, the Appeals Chamber notes that
the Impugned Decision is based on the proposed Joint
Amended Indictment, which is still currently subject
to a challenge by the Appellant pursuant to Rule
72 of the Rules and yet to be accepted by the Trial
Chamber as the operative indictment against the Appellant.32
The Appeals Chamber considers, proprio motu, that
this was an error of law. While neither party has
raised this argument the Appeals Chamber, as the final
arbiter of the law, will step in without guidance
from the parties “where a Trial
Chamber has made a glaring mistake.”33

In the Impugned Decision, the Referral Bench
acknowledged that “the Original
Indictment remains formally current against the [Appellant],”34
but determined that given the history of the indictments
brought by the Prosecution and the pending motion
to join the case against the Appellant and the case
against Mitar Rasevic in one indictment,35
it would consider the merits of the Motion for Referral
on the basis that the proposed Joint Amended Indictment
would be the operative indictment for both the Appellant
and Mitar Rasevic.36 In
considering the proposed Joint Amended Indictment
as the operative indictment for the purpose of the
Impugned Decision, the primary emphasis of the Referral
Bench appears to have been on the fact that the proposed
Joint Amended Indictment reduces the number of counts
against the Appellant and therefore, consideration
of the proposed Joint Amended Indictment as the operative
indictment would cause no prejudice to either the
Appellant or Mitar Rasevic.37

While the Impugned Decision was taken on the
basis that no prejudice would accrue to the Appellant,
the Appeal Chamber considers that the fact that the
Referral Bench based the Impugned Decision on an
indictment, which was subject to challenge by the
Appellant before the Trial Chamber and yet to be
accepted by the Trial Chamber as the operative indictment,
was an error of law invalidating the Impugned Decision
for the following reasons. First, it was not within
the mandate of the Referral Bench to consider the
merits of the Motion for Referral “on the basis that
the proposed Joint Amended Indictment will be the
operative indictment for both Accused.”38
This is a determination that falls squarely outside
the competence of the Referral Bench which “solely
and exclusively shall determine whether the case should
be referred to the authorities of a State.”39
By basing the Impugned Decision on an amended indictment
that had yet to be accepted by the Trial Chamber,
the Referral Bench pre-judged the Trial Chamber’s decision
on the proposed Joint Amended Indictment.

Second, once cases have been referred by the
International Tribunal to the State of Bosnia and
Herzegovina pursuant to Rule 11bis of the
Rules, the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina
(“BiH Prosecutor”) may only initiate
criminal prosecution in the State Court of Bosnia and
Herzegovina on the basis of an indictment that has already
been confirmed by the International Tribunal. In 2004, the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina enacted
the “Law on the Transfer
of Cases from the ICTY to the Prosecutor’s Office of
BiH and the Use of Evidence Collected by ICTY in Proceedings
before the Courts in BiH” (“BiH Law on the Transfer
of Cases”)40 in
order to receive cases referred by the International
Tribunal. Article 2 of the BiH Law on the Transfer
of Cases provides, in relevant part:

Article 2Transfer of cases by ICTY

(1) If the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia (ICTY) transfers a case with a
confirmed indictment according to Rule 11bis of
the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence […]
the BiH Prosecutor shall initiate criminal prosecution
according to the facts and charges laid out
in the indictment of the ICTY. The BiH Prosecutor
shall adapt the ICTY indictment in order to make
it compliant with the BiH Criminal Procedure
Code, following which the indictment shall be
forwarded to the Court of BiH. The Court of BiH
shall accept the indictment if it is ensured
that the ICTY indictment has been adequately
adapted and that the adapted indictment fulfils
the formal requirements of the BiH CPC.

(2) If the BiH Prosecutor adds charges or accused to
the indictment, the Court of BiH shall confirm the
indictment in accordance with the requirements of
the BiH CPC, but only in relation to the additional
charges or accused.

Under the BiH Law on the Transfer of Cases,
a case that is referred from the International Tribunal
to Bosnia and Herzegovina must be transferred from
the authorities of the State to the State Prosecutor’s
Office and the State Court for disposition, wherein
the War Crimes Chamber is conferred with the jurisdiction
to try a case referred by this International Tribunal.41
Once a case has been forwarded by the State authorities
to the BiH Prosecutor, Article 2 of the BiH Law on
the Transfer of Cases makes clear that the latter shall
adapt the indictment as confirmed by the International
Tribunal in order to make it compliant with the Criminal
Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, before forwarding
the indictment to the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.42
However, Article 2 does not explicitly allow the BiH
Prosecutor to drop the charges laid out in the indictment
already confirmed by a Judge of the International Tribunal, nor does it allow for the referred indictment to
be re-confirmed by a Judge of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Only charges added, or accused joined, will be subject
to confirmation by the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.43

In this case, the Appeals Chamber considers
that if the Impugned Decision were to be upheld
and the case referred, it follows from the BiH Law
on the Transfer of Cases that the BiH Prosecutor
would not be allowed to initiate criminal prosecution
pursuant to the proposed Joint Amended Indictment
absent a decision of the Trial Chamber on the Motion
on the Form of the Joint Amended Indictment ordering
that the Joint Amended Indictment be the operative
indictment against the Appellant. Therefore, the
BiH Prosecutor would only be able to initiate criminal
proceedings against the Appellant on the basis of
the original confirmed indictment against him.

The Appeals Chamber has found that due to the
fact that the Impugned Decision is based on an indictment
which is currently subject to a challenge by the
Appellant and yet to be accepted by the Trial Chamber
as the operative indictment, this amounts to an
error of law which invalidates the Impugned Decision,
hence such error also has an impact upon the decision
to refer the case against Mitar Rasevic to the authorities
in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, since Mitar
Rasevic has not appealed the Impugned Decision44 which
therefore has become final with respect to him, it
cannot be annulled in so far as Mitar Rasevic is
concerned. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber considers
that the execution of the Impugned Decision should
be suspended in so far as it concerns the referral
of the case against Mitar Rasevic to the authorities
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, until the Motion on the
Form of the Joint Amended Indictment has been disposed
of and a decision confirming which indictment shall
therefore be regarded as the operative indictment
is rendered by the Trial Chamber.

DISPOSITION

The Appeals Chamber QUASHES the Impugned
Decision with respect to the Appellant; REMITS the
matter to the Referral Bench for further consideration
consistent with this Decision; DIRECTS the
Referral Bench to defer issuance of any further
decision on referral of this case pursuant to Rule 11bis of
the Rules until the Trial Chamber renders a decision
on the Motion on the Form of the Joint Amended
Indictment, and SUSPENDS the execution of
the Impugned Decision with respect to Mitar Rasevic
until a decision on the Motion on the Form of the
Joint Amended Indictment has been rendered and a
decision confirming the operative indictment is
issued.

Done in both English and French, the English text being
authoritative.

Dated this twenty third day of February 2006,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

_______________________
Judge Fausto Pocar
Presiding

[Seal of the International Tribunal]

1 - See
Prosecutor v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case
No.: IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.1, Savo Todovic’s Defence Notice
of Appeal, 25 July 2005; Appellant’s Brief, 9 August
2005. 2 - Prosecutor
v. Krnojelac et al., Case No.: IT-97-25/1-I, Indictment,
filed on 11 June 1997 and confirmed on 17 June 1997
(“Original Indictment”). 3 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-PT, Decision
Regarding Defence Preliminary Motion on the Form of
the Indictment, 28 April 2004.
4 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-PT, Amended
Indictment, 12 May 2004.
5 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-PT, Decision
on the “Defence’s Preliminary Motion Pursuant to the
Rules 50(C) and 72(A)(ii)” of 10 June 2004, 27 July
2004. 6 - Prosecutor
v. Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25-1/I, Motion by
the Prosecutor Under Rule 11 bis (A), 1 November 2004;
Prosecutor v. Mitar Rasevic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-PT,
Motion by the Prosecutor Under Rule 11 bis With
Annexes I and II and Confidential Annexes III and IV,
Partly Confidential, 4 November 2004 (together: “Motions for
Referral”). 7 - Prosecutor
v. Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25-1/I, Order Appointing
a Trial Chamber for the Purpose of Determining Whether
an Indictment Should be Referred to Another Court Under
Rule 11 bis, 2 November 2004; see also Corrigendum
to Order Appointing a Trial Chamber for the Purpose
of Determining Whether the Indictment Should be Referred
to Another Court Under Rule 11 bis, 3 November 2004;
Prosecutor v. Mitar Rasevic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-PT,
Order Appointing a Trial Chamber for the Purpose of
Determining Whether the Indictment Should be Referred
to Another Court Under Rule 11 bis, 5 November 2004.
8 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-PT,
Decision for Further Information in the Context of
the Prosecutor’s Motions Under Rule 11 bis, 14 April
2005. 9 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-PT,
Prosecution’s Further Submissions Pursuant to Chamber’s
Decision of 14 April 2005, 28 April 2005; Savo Todovic’s
Defence Response to Prosecution’s 11bis Motion
and Defence’s Submission of Further Information in Accordance
with the Referral Bench’s Decision of 14 April 2005
and in the Context of the Prosecutor’s Motion under
Rule 11bis, 28 April 2005; Response by the Government
of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) to Questions Posed
by the Referral Bench in its Decision of 14 April 2005,
28 April 2005.
10 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-PT,
Serbia and Montenegro’s Submission in the Proceedings
under Rule 11 bis, 9 May 2005.
11 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-PT,
Rule 11bis Motion Hearing, 12 May 2005 (“Rule 11bis
Hearing”). 12 - See
Impugned Decision, para. 12.
13 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-PT,
Order, 23 March 2005, p. 2. On 20 April 2005, the Prosecution
filed its Prosecution’s Motion for Leave to Amend the
Original Indictment With Attached Annexes A and B and
Confidential Annexes C and D. The proposed amended
indictment against the Appellant (“Proposed Amended
Indictment”) was annexed to the motion as Annex A. 14 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-PT,
Order on the Partly Confidential Prosecution’s Motion
for Leave to Amend the Original Indictment, 17 May
2005, p. 2. 15 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-PT,
Prosecution’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Operative
Indictments with attached Annexes A and B And Confidential
Annexes C and D, 25 May 2005 (“Motion for Leave to
File the Joint Amended Indictment”); Annex A: Proposed
Joint Amended Indictment with Schedules A to E (“Joint
Amended Indictment”). 16 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-PT,
Savo Todovic’s Defence Preliminary Motion on the Form
of the Joint Amended Indictment, 27 June 2005 (“Motion
on the Form of the Joint Amended Indictment”). 17 - The
Pre-Appeal Judge provided the following explanation
to the parties as to why no decision on the Motion
on the Form of the Joint Amended Indictment had been
taken by the Trial Chamber: “The Judges of the Chamber,
whom I consulted, considered that one should await
the decision on the question of the referral of the
case to the judicial authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
because if this case were finally referred to the authorities
of Bosnia-Herzegovina, it will be for the Prosecutor
-- the local Prosecutor to draft an indictment since
the referral has been ordered from a case file concerning
facts. And the legal qualification of facts will be
then done by the local prosecutor. Therefore, it appears
to me difficult for the Judges of the Chamber to pronounce
on legal issues when the local prosecutor has still
to decide on these things according to his own indictment.
This is the reason why we decided to await the decision
of the Referral Bench. Since the Referral Bench has
now to await a appeal we have to wait serenely the
decision of the Appeals Chamber.” Transcripts of Status
Conference, 20 October 2005, T. 177. 18 - Impugned
Decision, para. 113.19 - Ibid.20 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.1,
Prosecution’s Notice of Appeal, 25 July 2005. 21 - Prosecutor
v. Radovan Stankovic, Case No.: IT-96-23/2-AR11bis.1,
Prosecutor v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case
No.: IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.1, Prosecutor v.
Zeljko Mejakic et al., Case No.: IT-02-65-AR11bis.2, Prosecutor
v. Gojko Jankovic, Case No.: IT-96-23/2-AR11bis.2,
Notice of Related Cases and Request to Join Issues
for Appeal, 5 August 2005, para. 2. 22 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.1,
Prosecution’s Appellant’s Brief, 5 August 2005. 23 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.1,
Defence Response to Prosecution’s Appellant’s Brief,
15 August 2005, para. 4. 24 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.1,
Savo Todovic’s Defence Notice of Appeal, para. 13(1). 25 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.11,
Savo Todovic’s Defence Notice of Appeal, 25 July 2005,
para. 13(2). 26 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.1,
Appellant’s Brief, 9 August 2005. 27 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.1,
Prosecutor’s Response Brief, 19 August 2005. 28 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.1,
Defence Reply Brief, 26 August 2005.
29 - Prosecutor
v. Radovan Stankovic, Case No.: IT-96-23/2-AR11bis.1,
Decision on Rule 11bis Referral, 1 September 2005.
30 - Prosecutor
v. Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic, Case No.: IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.1,
Prosecutor v. Zeljko Mejakic et al., Case No.: IT-02-65-AR11bis.2,
Prosecutor v. Gojko Jankovic, Case No.: IT-96-23/2-AR11bis.2,
Notice of Withdrawal of Appeals, 19 September 2005. 31 - U.N.
Doc. S/res/1534 (2004), 26 March 2004, paras 4-5.
32 - See Motion on the Form
of the Joint Amended Indictment.
33 - Prosecutor
v. Zoran Kupreskic et al., Case No.: IT-95-16-A, Appeal
Judgment, 23 October 2001, para. 27.
34 - Impugned
Decision, para. 8.35 - Motion
for Leave to File the Joint Amended Indictment.
36 - Impugned
Decision, para. 8.37 - Ibid. “(t(he
proposed Joint Amended Indictment is based upon the
same basic factual substratum as the Original Indictment
brought against the Accused Todovic and the Rasevic
Amended Indictment. The major difference between the
proposed Joint Amended Indictment and the Original
Indictment is that the Joint Amended Indictment reduces
the number of Counts against the Accused Todovic from
eighteen to twelve by eliminating six Counts, all cumulative
to Counts charging the same behaviour as war crimes
and crimes against humanity, alleging grave breaches
under Article 2 of the Statute of the Tribunal. The
proposed Joint Amended Indictment thus aligns the factual
and legal allegations against both Accused with those
in the Rasevic Amended Indictment, and joins the two
cases in the one Indictment. The Referral Bench is
persuaded that consideration of the Joint Amended Indictment
[…] as the operative indictment against the two Accused
for the purpose of referral results in no prejudice
to either Accused. It will be convenient in this decision,
therefore, to refer to the one case in which the two
Accused are joined, rather than to two separate cases,
so as to satisfy the expression of the Bench’s reasons.
Nevertheless, where the relevant circumstances differ
as between the two Accused, we have considered them
separately.”
38 - Impugned
Decision, para. 8.39 - Rule
11bis (A).40 - Official
Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, No. 37/03, 54/04,
61/04.
41 - Agreement
between the High Representative for BiH and Bosnia
and Herzegovina on the Establishment of the Registry
for Section I for War Crimes and Section II for Organized
Crime, Economic Crime and Corruption of the Criminal
and Appellate Division of the Court of BiH and the
Special Department for War Crimes and the Special Department
for Organized Crime, Economic Crime and Corruption
of the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, Official Gazette
of Bosnia and Herzegovina 16/02, International Agreements
11/04; Law on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Laws on Amendments, Official Gazette of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, No. 16/02, 42/03, 42/03, 9/04, 4/04, 35/04,
61/04, Art. 24. 42 - BiH
Law on the Transfer of Cases, Article 2(1).
43 - See BiH Law on the Transfer
of Cases, Article 2(2).
44 - See IT-97-25/1-PT, Defence
Motion on the Decision on Referral of Case under Rule
11bis from 8 July 2005, 25 July 2005.